Kapileshwar Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18204 of 2018 ====================================================== Kapileshwar Mahto son of Sri Chandra Mahto Resident of Village - Pouta, P.O. Tilaktajpur, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3.
The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi. 4.
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar-cum-Licensing Authority, District - Sitamarhi.
5.
The Block Supply Officer, Runnisaidpur, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr.S.Raza Ahmed, AAG-5 Mr. Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 07-10-2021 The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar whereby and whereunder the PDS license of the petitioner bearing License No. 23 of 2008-12 has been cancelled.
The short point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 08.12.2016 would show that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar has failed to mention about the proposal for cancellation of the license, which is contrary to the provision contained in Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control)
Patna High Court CWJC No.18204 of 2018(4) dt.07-10-2021 2/3 Order, 2016.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present case is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 10.7.2018 passed in L.P.A. No. 499 of 2018 (Ram Bachan Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
The learned counsel for the Respondent-State, Sri Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 has not disputed the position, as is existing in law.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the materials available on record, this Court finds that the show cause notice dated 08.12.2016 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar does not mention about any proposal for cancellation of the license of the petitioner, hence admittedly, no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, proposing cancellation of the license, as is contemplated under Rule 27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS (Control) Order, 2016. Thus the show cause notice dated 08.12.2016, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar is not only contrary to the provisions contained in clause27(ii) of the Bihar Targeted PDS Control Order, 2016 but also contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram
Patna High Court CWJC No.18204 of 2018(4) dt.07-10-2021 3/3 Bechan Ram (supra), hence, the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 suffers from material legal infirmity on account of the show cause notice dated 08.12.2016 being contrary to law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar stands vitiated in the eyes of law, thus, is quashed, however, with liberty to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar to proceed afresh, in accordance with law.
The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U